S. JAFFAR SAHIB versus SECRETARY A.P.P.S.C. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 719 · Decided: 24-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S. JAFFAR SAHIB 
v. 
SECRETARY A.P.P.S.C. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 24, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law-Appointment-Challenge of-After Lapse of 9 years--
Held, cannot be entertained-Limitation Act. 
A 
B 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 : Order 1 Rule 9-Non lmpleadment of C 
necessary party-Effect of-Held, no Court or Tlibunal can pass any order 
against the person whose lights would be affected without impleading him as 
party. 
Appellant, a general category candidate, was denied appointment to 
the post of Deputy Collector for the recruitment year 1980-81. There were D 
10 vacancies, out of which 5 were reserved and 5 were for general category 
candidates. Respondents 4 to 9 (candidates of Backward Classes) were 
appointed. 
Appellant challenged the appointment of the above-mentioned 
respondents, in 1987 before Administrative Tribunal on the ground that E 
in the said appointment Rules of Reservations were violated since ap-
pointed persons from the reserved category were more than the percentage 
meant. Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground of !aches, but 
observed that the representation could be considered for future vacancy. 
Appellant did not challenge the order of the Tribunal but made repre-
F 
sentation before the Public Service Commission which was rejected. Ap· 
pellant filed another application in 1990 challenging the 1981 appointment, 
which was dismissed on the ground of !aches. Review to the order was also 
dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the appointments, G 
having made contrary to Rules of Reservations, were invalid and inopera· 
tive. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The contention of the appellant cannot be accepted at this H 
719 
720 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996} SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A belated stage. On the admitted facts that appointment of respondents to 
the post of Deputy Collector.was made in the year 1981, an application 
before the Tribunal in the year 1990, could not have been entertained after 
lapse of 9 years. (721 .. f, H, 722-A] 
2. Without impleading a person as a party whose rights would be 
B affected, no Court/Tribunal can pass any order against him'. In view of the 
fact that appellant has not made the affected persons parties to the 
proceedings, there is no justification for interference under Article 136 of 
the Constitution. [722:-B] 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13238 of 
1996. 
D 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.8.94 of the Andhra Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in R.M.A. No. 2191 of 1994 read 
with O.A. No. 40498 of 1990. 
Appellant-in-Person. · 
K. Ram Kumar for the Respondent No. 1-3. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : 
PATIANAIK, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the 
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dismissing the appellant's ap-
plication registered as O.A. No. 40498 of 1990 and the order dismissing the 
F review application filed by the· appellant which was registered as M.A. No. 
2191 of 1994 by order dated 24th August, 1994. 
The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission has is-
sued an advertisement for the 20 posts in Group I services in the cadre of 
Deputy Collector for the recruitment year 1980-81 by a Notification dated 
G 28th January, 1980. The appellant who was qualified and eligible to apply 
for the same, appeared at the written test conducted by the Public Service 
Commission and also appeared in the interview which was held on 19th 
January, 1981. It was decided to fill-up 10 posts of Deputy Collector out 
of which two posts were meant for Scheduled Castes, one for Backward 
H Class Group 'A' and two for Backward Class Group 'D' and rest 5 for 
S.JAFFARSAHIBv. SECY.,AP.P.S.C.[PATIANAIK,J.) 
721 
candidates from open competition. The appellant belong to the last A 
category whereas respondents 4 to 9 belong to Backward Classes. category. 
The appellant challenging the appointment of the respondents on the 
ground that in making the appointment the concerned authority violated 
the provisions of the Rules of Reservations and in fact appointed persons 
from reserved category mote than the percentage of reservation meant, B 
filed an application in the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which 
was registered as R.P. No. 6652. The Tribunal, however, did not interfere 
with the appointments made in the year 1981 on the ground of laches on 
the part of the appellant to approa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.